Archive for the ‘Charles Krauthammer’ Category

Conservative commentator Charles Krauthammer slammed the Democratic National Committee for their statement Monday criticizing President Trump over explosive accusations made in a Washington Post story about alleged leaks to the Russians. He made the statements on Fox News.

I think these statements are completely irresponsible from the DNC, he said. They have no idea what was revealed, they have no idea the gravity of it.

It can be, perhaps its not, but this is just pure opportunism, Krauthammer continued. And a reflex reaction.

Particularly since their candidate for the presidency had been spilling classified information, he explained, some of the highest level, for a year and a half and the Democrats pretended that either it wasnt a problem or that it should be ignored. Its rather unseemly.

Having said that, the issue is we dont know what the information was, he continued. Probably the content of it is not the problem. What it sounds as if, is that we have an ally whos infiltrated into ISIS and this might have helped the Russians see that and perhaps, knowing the Russians, that information would be spilled elsewhere. Because after all the Russians are allied with Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas, others. So that information could spread.

Its something like what happened some years ago when there was a leak from the Yemen branch of Al Qaeda, he explained, I think they had advanced operations in terms of blowing up airliners by hiding electronics. And by leaking that, we revealed that we had somebody inside the operation was blown, and that was the end of that source of information.

So its not as if it hasnt happened before, he concluded, its possible were not sure how much of a breach it is, but if it did hinder our relations with an ally whose already infiltrated inside, it could be a problem.

The Washington Post reportclaimedthe more revealing details they received were being withheld on request from their sources who did not want classified information released.

The story has been denied by National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster in a statement outside the White House, but some reporters referred to it a non-denial because it was so carefully parsed and he took no questions from the press.

The story has been confirmed by sources to Buzzfeed, the New York Times, CNN, and Reuters. Supporters of the president decrying the report as fake news conjured up through anonymous sources.

If the stunning Washington Post report that President Donald Trump leaked classified information to the Russian ambassador and Foreign Minister is accurate, the question becomes: Was it a mistake, or was it deliberate?

Charles Krauthammer says its the former.

Appearing on Special Report, the conservative commentator does not believe the disclosure was done with malice. But he does believe that the President may have acted in an unschooled manner.

Of all the probabilities, the idea he was acting as a Manchurian candidate feeding information to his Russian operatives and controllers is ridiculous. The only implication here is that hes unschooled. This is his first go around with sensitive information and he mightve slipped up. If he did, its not good. On the other hand, if its not deliberate, its not exactly a high crime and misdemeanor.

In the context of the moment, given his questions about his relationship with Russia, that he would invite not only the foreign minister but the ambassador into the Oval Office, Williams said. Andalso invite the Russian press at a time when he wasnt inviting the American press. People were concerned about leaving all kinds of devices in the Oval Office. This is what is creating so much attention to this report from the Washington Post.

Fridays airing of Special Report With Bret Baier saw Charles Krauthammer call President Donald Trump more mafioso thug than president.

Referencing Trumps Friday tweet that read, James Comey better hope that there are no tapes of our conversations before he starts leaking to the press! Krauthammer said, All of a sudden youre raising something nobody had imagined and saying You better watch out. Thats un-presidential, which is kind of a nice way of saying that that sounds more like a mafia boss than the president of a free republic.

Trump told NBC News Lester Holt on Thursday that he outright asked Comey if he was under investigation.

I said, If its possible would you let me know, am I under investigation?’ Trump told Holt. He said, You are not under investigation,’ and added that Comey told him two more times that he was not under any federal investigation.

After Trump sent his tweet on Friday, many wondered whether or not purported conversations between Trump and Comey were, in fact, recorded.

Despite the tenor of Trumps tweet, White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer during his Friday press briefing, said that the presidents comment was not a threat and that the tweet speaks for itself. Spicer neither confirmed nor denied the existence of any such tapes between Trump and Comey.

Now we have another new rabbit to chase down another hole, Krauthammer told Baier, referencing the allegations that Comey may possess recorded conversations between him and the president. This is self-inflicted. When you hear Spicer say This isnt a threat, I mean, what is it?

Krauthammer continued, calling the presidents tweet unnecessary.

People say, Well, what people like about Trump is that hes unconventional,’ he said. Well, unconventional means stepped outside the bounds of behavior which 44 individuals have tried to stay within, starting with George Washington, who tried to set an example of a certain rectitude and dignity, and to try to talk like, Well you better watch out, or you might get whacked by tapes this is self-inflicted and unnecessary.

I agree there was total grounds for getting rid of Comey, Krauthammer countered. There was something on both sides of the aisle for the mistakes he made, and perhaps his unfitness for the job. But that would have made it relatively easy to get rid of him in a way that wouldve not stirred up this kind of firestorm, and then when it looks like its starting to dab down, to start up with You better watch out something might happen to you.’

Charles Krauthammer laid out his immediate thoughts on the firing of James Comey:

Its so amazing that I think we are only at the very beginning of the story. Here is what is so odd about it. According to the letter by the deputy attorney general, this is about something that occurred on July 5 [Comeys recommendation to close the Clinton investigation without prosecution]. So we start out with something that is highly implausible. If that was so offensive to the Trump Administration, what you would have done is in the transition, you would have spoken with Comey and said we are going to let you go. Thats when a president could very easily make a decision to have a change. That not unprecedented. But to fire him summarily with no warning in the middle of May because of something that happened in July is almost inexplicable. Second, the reason ostensibly is (as you read in that latter) for doing something that you are not supposed to do, to usurp the attorney general, but second: to release all the information which was damaging to Hillary Clinton, Donald Trumps opponent. Do we really believe Donald Trump, after all these months, decided suddenly to fire this guy because he damaged Hillary back in July? Another implausible conjecture. We are left to believe that it might have something to do with the egregious mistake that Comey made in the testimony this week.

BAIER: Although its not mentioned in any of these letters.

KRAUTHAMMER Its not mentioned anywhere. But if you are saying the ostensible reasons are implausible, then you are looking at something we have not heard about, and we end up with that very strange clause that you read in the letter from Trump to Comey. While I greatly appreciate you informing me, on three separate occasions, that I am not under investigation, who has been talking about FBI investigations of Trump? This sort of explodes on us without any preparation, without any background. I suspect where this is going to go is to that clause.

Conservative stalwart Charles Krauthammer predicts the U.S. will have a single-payer health care system within the next seven years.

Fox News Channels Special Report panel gathered to discuss the Houses passage of the American Health Care Act on Thursday evening, at which time Mr. Krauthammer predicted the great irony of Obamacares shortcomings: Socialized health care will be an American reality within a decade.

I think historically speaking we are at the midpoint, the conservative author said. We had seven years of Obamacare, a change in expectations. And I would predict that in less than seven years, we will be in a single-payer system. I think thats the great irony of this. Obamacare failed at every level. Politically, the Democrats were crushed over six years and four elections, whereas you say, they lost seats in the House, the Senate, the governorships, etc. largely because of Obamacare.

Mr. Krauthammer said that repealing Obamacares mandate to hold insurance and altering rules on subsidies will not matter in the long run because too many Americans perceive health care to be a right.

I think Obamacare wins the day because it changed expectations, the pundit said. Look at the terms of the debate. Republicans are not arguing the free market anymore. They have sort of accepted the fact that the electorate sees health care as not just any commodity. Its not like purchasing a steak or a car. It is something people now have a sense that government ought to guarantee.

President Donald Trump offered a different take on Thursday, telling the public to make no mistake, this is a repeal and a replace of Obamacare.

Senators said Thursday that they will craft their own bill instead of voting on the House version.

The safest thing to say is there will be a Senate bill, but it will look at what the House has done and see how much of that we can incorporate in a product that works for us in reconciliation, Sen. Roy Blunt, Missouri Republican,told The Washington Examiner.

It was implausible that FBI Director James Comey was fired in May 2017 for actions committed in July 2016 the rationale contained in the memo by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.

It was implausible that Comey was fired by Donald Trump for having been too tough on Hillary Clinton, as when, at that July news conference, he publicly recited her various email misdeeds despite recommending against prosecution.

It was implausible that Trump fired Comey for, among other things, reopening the Clinton investigation 11 days before the election, something that at the time Trump praised as a sign of Comeys guts that had brought back his reputation.

It was implausible that Trump, notorious for being swayed by close and loyal personal advisers, fired Comey on the recommendation of a sub-cabinet official whom Trump hardly knew and whod been on the job all of two weeks.

It was implausible that Trump found Rosensteins arguments so urgently persuasive that he acted immediately so precipitously, in fact, that Comey learned of his own firing from TVs that happened to be playing behind him.

These implausibilities were obvious within seconds of Comeys firing and the administrations immediate attempt to pin it all on the Rosenstein memo. That was pure spin. So why in reality did Trump fire Comey?

Admittedly, Comey had to go. The cliche is that if youve infuriated both sides, it means you must be doing something right. Sometimes, however, it means you must be doing everything wrong.

Over the last year, Comey has been repeatedly wrong. Not, in my view, out of malice or partisanship (although his self-righteousness about his own probity does occasionally grate). He was in an unprecedented situation with unpalatable choices.

Never in American presidential history had a major party nominated a candidate under official FBI investigation. (Turns out the Trump campaign was under investigation as well.) Which makes the normal injunction that FBI directors not interfere in elections facile and impossible to follow. Any course of action disclosure or silence, commission or omission carried unavoidable electoral consequences.

Comey had to make up the rules as he went along. He did. That was not his downfall. His downfall was making up contradictory, illogical rules, such as the July 5 non-indictment indictment of Clinton.

A series of these, and Comey became anathema to both Democrats and Republicans. Clinton blamed her loss on two people. One of them was Comey.

And theres the puzzle. There was ample bipartisan sentiment for letting Comey go. And there was ample time from election day on to do so. A simple talk, a gold watch, a friendly farewell, a Comey resignation to allow the new president to pick a new director. No fanfare, no rancor.

Advertisement

True, this became more difficult after March 20, when Comey revealed that the FBI was investigating the alleged Trump-Russia collusion. Difficult but not impossible.

For example, just last week Comey had committed an egregious factual error about the Huma Abedin emails that the FBI had to abjectly walk back in a written memo to the Senate Judiciary Committee. Here was an opportunity for a graceful exit: Comey regrets the mistake and notes that some of the difficult decisions he had previously made necessarily cost him the confidence of various parties. Time for a clean slate. Add the usual boilerplate about not wanting to be a distraction at such a crucial time.Awkward perhaps, but still dignified and amicable.

Instead we got a political ax murder, brutal even by Washington standards. (Or even Roman standards?) A blindsided Comey ends up in an O.J. Bronco ride, bolting from Los Angeles to be flown, defrocked, back to Washington.

Why? Trump had become increasingly agitated with the Russia-election investigation and Comeys very public part in it. If Trump thought this would kill the inquiry and the story, or perhaps even just derail it somewhat, hes made the blunder of the decade.

Whacking Comey has brought more critical attention to the Russia story than anything imaginable. It wont stop the FBI investigation. And the confirmation hearings for a successor will become a nationally televised forum for collusion allegations, which up till now have remained a scandal in search of a crime.

So why did he do it? Now we know: The king asked whether no one would rid him of this troublesome priest, and got so impatient he did it himself.

Charles Krauthammer is a columnist for The Washington Post. Letters@charleskrauthammer.com

Charles Krauthammer admitted that though he didnt necessarily think it was illegal that President Donald Trump asked former FBI Director James Comey about the purported ongoing Russian investigation, it wasnt exactly proper.

Speaking on Thursday nights Special Report With Bret Baier, Baier said, Clearly, Comey told President Trump, at least according to him, numerous times that he wasnt under investigation.

Posing the question to his panel, which included Krauthammer, Baier asked, What about this whole thing about asking him at a dinner or on the phone while Director Comey is trying to indicate that he wants to keep the job, whether he the president is being investigated?

Krauthammer answered, That came up on Tuesday night when we first read the statement from the president, that very odd statement and by the way, he says Im not under investigation. The question is, I dont think its illegal for that to be asked or answered, but he surely looks pretty improper. I thought thats the standard. You are not supposed to tell someone whether they are or not [being investigated].

Comparing Trumps questioning of Comey to reports of Bill Clintons tarmac discussion with former Attorney General Loretta Lynch regarding the investigation of Hillary Clintons email server, Krauthammer went on.

In fact, Krauthammer continued, I think the analogy could be drawn to what happened with Loretta Lynch. We assumed she was improperly approached by Bill Clinton and that he may, or even the fact that he might have asked was, as you showed in the clip earlier, something that Trump himself had called a disgrace. There is a line here, apparently what we hear from Grassley and Feinstein, this did happened, which clears away one question: is it true? The other, should it have happened? I think thats still a question.

Charles Krauthammer is a lion in the world of conservative politics. As such, his words on major news stories come with much more gravity than your typical pundit of any philosophical leaning. So tonight was an interesting night to learn how Mr. Krauthammer would react to the bombshell firing of former FBI Director James Comey.

One of the many news items that came out today regarding this ever-evolving story-cum-scandal is President Trumps admission that he asked Comey whether or not he was being investigated, something that runs counter to the original reporting of the Comey sacking led by the White House Press Department.

Simply put, Krauthammer stated that, while he didnt think it illegal for a sitting President to ask an FBI Director about an on-going investigation, it looks pretty improper, adding that the accepted standard for such behavior for an FBI chief is that he or she is not supposed to tell someone whether they are (under investigation) or not.

Like many other conservative commentators who have opined on this story, Krauthammer compared Trumps questioning of Comey to the story of Bill Clinton buttonholing of then AG Loretta Lynch regarding an investigation into Hillary Clintons email server.

Watch the clip above courtesy of Fox News. Rough transcript below:

And that came up on Tuesday night when we first read the statement from the president, that very odd statement. By the way, he says Im not under investigation. The question is, I dont think its illegal for that to be asked or answered. But it looks pretty improper. I thought thats the standard. You are not supposed to tell someone whether they are or not.

I think the analogy could be drawn to what happened with Loretta lynch. We assumed she was improperly approached by Bill Clinton and that he may, or even the fact that he might have asked was, as you showed in the clip earlier, something that Trump himself has called a disgrace. There is a line here, apparently what we hear from Grassley and Feinstein, it happened, which clears away one question. The other, should it have happened? I think thats still a question.

Charles Krauthammer joined Tucker Carlson tonight to react to a CNN interview in which hostAnderson Cooper noticeably rolled his eyes at White House counselor Kellyanne Conway.

Conway was appearing on Cooper’s show Tuesday night to discuss President Donald Trump’s decision hours earlier to fire FBI Director James Comey.

Cooper rolled his eyes when Conway offered her response to the show playing soundbites in which Trump praised Comey on the campaign trail last year.

Conway said this morning on “Fox & Friends” she encounters sexism often when she goes on TV for interviews.

Krauthammer said the press is and has always been anti-conservative, but its coverage of the Trump administration is a “special case.”

“There is a particular edge to the coverage. And it’s as if the Comey episode … has sort of sent people over the edge, to the point where they think there really are no journalistic limits or journalistic restraints,” Krauthammer said.

Tucker asked why the media has such a knee-jerk negative reaction to Trump.

Krauthammer said for many on the left – and some on the right, as well – it comes down to a question of fitness for the role of commander-in-chief.

“I think there’s a lot about his persona that simply repels people,” Krauthammer said. “And that spills over into how they treat him journalistically, which I think ought not be the case.”

Conservative commentator Charles Krauthammer slammed the Democratic National Committee for their statement Monday criticizing President Trump over explosive accusations made in a Washington Post story about alleged leaks to the Russians. He made the statements on Fox News. I think these statements are completely irresponsible from the DNC, he said. They have no idea what was revealed, they have no idea the gravity of it. It can be, perhaps its not, but this is just pure opportunism, Krauthammer continued. And a reflex reaction. Particularly since their candidate for the presidency had been spilling classified information, he explained, some of the highest level, for a year and a half and the Democrats pretended that either it wasnt a problem or that it should be ignored. Its rather unseemly. Having said that, the issue is we dont know what the information was, he continued. Probably the content of it is not the problem. What it sounds as if, is that we have an ally whos infiltrated into ISIS and this might have helped the Russians see that and perhaps, knowing the Russians, that information would be spilled elsewhere. Because after all the Russians are allied with Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas, others. So that information could spread. Its something like what happened some years ago when there was a leak from the Yemen branch of Al Qaeda, he explained, I think they had advanced operations in terms of blowing up airliners by hiding electronics. And by leaking that, we revealed that we had somebody inside the operation was blown, and that was the end of that source of information. So its not as if it hasnt happened before, he concluded, its possible were not sure how much of a breach it is, but if it did hinder our relations with an ally whose already infiltrated inside, it could be a problem. The Washington Post reportclaimedthe more revealing details they received were being withheld on request from their sources who did not want classified information released. The story has been denied by National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster in a statement outside the White House, but some reporters referred to it a non-denial because it was so carefully parsed and he took no questions from the press. The story has been confirmed by sources to Buzzfeed, the New York Times, CNN, and Reuters. Supporters of the president decrying the report as fake news conjured up through anonymous sources.

If the stunning Washington Post report that President Donald Trump leaked classified information to the Russian ambassador and Foreign Minister is accurate, the question becomes: Was it a mistake, or was it deliberate? Charles Krauthammer says its the former. Appearing on Special Report, the conservative commentator does not believe the disclosure was done with malice. But he does believe that the President may have acted in an unschooled manner. Of all the probabilities, the idea he was acting as a Manchurian candidate feeding information to his Russian operatives and controllers is ridiculous. The only implication here is that hes unschooled. This is his first go around with sensitive information and he mightve slipped up. If he did, its not good. On the other hand, if its not deliberate, its not exactly a high crime and misdemeanor. Fellow panelist Juan Williams took umbrage with Krauthhammers assessment, given the questions surrounding Trumps relationship with Russia. In the context of the moment, given his questions about his relationship with Russia, that he would invite not only the foreign minister but the ambassador into the Oval Office, Williams said. Andalso invite the Russian press at a time when he wasnt inviting the American press. People were concerned about leaving all kinds of devices in the Oval Office. This is what is creating so much attention to this report from the Washington Post. This context is irrelevant, Krauthammer said. Not at all, Williams said. Watch above, via Fox News. [featured image via screengrab] Follow Joe DePaolo (@joe_depaolo) on Twitter Have a tip we should know? tips@mediaite.com

Fridays airing of Special Report With Bret Baier saw Charles Krauthammer call President Donald Trump more mafioso thug than president. Referencing Trumps Friday tweet that read, James Comey better hope that there are no tapes of our conversations before he starts leaking to the press! Krauthammer said, All of a sudden youre raising something nobody had imagined and saying You better watch out. Thats un-presidential, which is kind of a nice way of saying that that sounds more like a mafia boss than the president of a free republic. Trump told NBC News Lester Holt on Thursday that he outright asked Comey if he was under investigation. I said, If its possible would you let me know, am I under investigation?’ Trump told Holt. He said, You are not under investigation,’ and added that Comey told him two more times that he was not under any federal investigation. After Trump sent his tweet on Friday, many wondered whether or not purported conversations between Trump and Comey were, in fact, recorded. Despite the tenor of Trumps tweet, White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer during his Friday press briefing, said that the presidents comment was not a threat and that the tweet speaks for itself. Spicer neither confirmed nor denied the existence of any such tapes between Trump and Comey. Now we have another new rabbit to chase down another hole, Krauthammer told Baier, referencing the allegations that Comey may possess recorded conversations between him and the president. This is self-inflicted. When you hear Spicer say This isnt a threat, I mean, what is it? Krauthammer continued, calling the presidents tweet unnecessary. People say, Well, what people like about Trump is that hes unconventional,’ he said. Well, unconventional means stepped outside the bounds of behavior which 44 individuals have tried to stay within, starting with George Washington, who tried to set an example of a certain rectitude and dignity, and to try to talk like, Well you better watch out, or you might get whacked by tapes this is self-inflicted and unnecessary. I agree there was total grounds for getting rid of Comey, Krauthammer countered. There was something on both sides of the aisle for the mistakes he made, and perhaps his unfitness for the job. But that would have made it relatively easy to get rid of him in a way that wouldve not stirred up this kind of firestorm, and then when it looks like its starting to dab down, to start up with You better watch out something might happen to you.’ See the full exchange in the video below.

Charles Krauthammer laid out his immediate thoughts on the firing of James Comey: Its so amazing that I think we are only at the very beginning of the story. Here is what is so odd about it. According to the letter by the deputy attorney general, this is about something that occurred on July 5 [Comeys recommendation to close the Clinton investigation without prosecution]. So we start out with something that is highly implausible. If that was so offensive to the Trump Administration, what you would have done is in the transition, you would have spoken with Comey and said we are going to let you go. Thats when a president could very easily make a decision to have a change. That not unprecedented. But to fire him summarily with no warning in the middle of May because of something that happened in July is almost inexplicable. Second, the reason ostensibly is (as you read in that latter) for doing something that you are not supposed to do, to usurp the attorney general, but second: to release all the information which was damaging to Hillary Clinton, Donald Trumps opponent. Do we really believe Donald Trump, after all these months, decided suddenly to fire this guy because he damaged Hillary back in July? Another implausible conjecture. We are left to believe that it might have something to do with the egregious mistake that Comey made in the testimony this week. BAIER: Although its not mentioned in any of these letters. KRAUTHAMMER Its not mentioned anywhere. But if you are saying the ostensible reasons are implausible, then you are looking at something we have not heard about, and we end up with that very strange clause that you read in the letter from Trump to Comey. While I greatly appreciate you informing me, on three separate occasions, that I am not under investigation, who has been talking about FBI investigations of Trump? This sort of explodes on us without any preparation, without any background. I suspect where this is going to go is to that clause.

Conservative stalwart Charles Krauthammer predicts the U.S. will have a single-payer health care system within the next seven years. Fox News Channels Special Report panel gathered to discuss the Houses passage of the American Health Care Act on Thursday evening, at which time Mr. Krauthammer predicted the great irony of Obamacares shortcomings: Socialized health care will be an American reality within a decade. I think historically speaking we are at the midpoint, the conservative author said. We had seven years of Obamacare, a change in expectations. And I would predict that in less than seven years, we will be in a single-payer system. I think thats the great irony of this. Obamacare failed at every level. Politically, the Democrats were crushed over six years and four elections, whereas you say, they lost seats in the House, the Senate, the governorships, etc. largely because of Obamacare. Thursdays bill passed on a 217-213 vote while Democrats taunted Republicans with chants of Na na na na, hey, hey, hey, goodbye. Mr. Krauthammer said that repealing Obamacares mandate to hold insurance and altering rules on subsidies will not matter in the long run because too many Americans perceive health care to be a right. I think Obamacare wins the day because it changed expectations, the pundit said. Look at the terms of the debate. Republicans are not arguing the free market anymore. They have sort of accepted the fact that the electorate sees health care as not just any commodity. Its not like purchasing a steak or a car. It is something people now have a sense that government ought to guarantee. President Donald Trump offered a different take on Thursday, telling the public to make no mistake, this is a repeal and a replace of Obamacare. Senators said Thursday that they will craft their own bill instead of voting on the House version. The safest thing to say is there will be a Senate bill, but it will look at what the House has done and see how much of that we can incorporate in a product that works for us in reconciliation, Sen. Roy Blunt, Missouri Republican,told The Washington Examiner.

It was implausible that FBI Director James Comey was fired in May 2017 for actions committed in July 2016 the rationale contained in the memo by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. It was implausible that Comey was fired by Donald Trump for having been too tough on Hillary Clinton, as when, at that July news conference, he publicly recited her various email misdeeds despite recommending against prosecution. It was implausible that Trump fired Comey for, among other things, reopening the Clinton investigation 11 days before the election, something that at the time Trump praised as a sign of Comeys guts that had brought back his reputation. It was implausible that Trump, notorious for being swayed by close and loyal personal advisers, fired Comey on the recommendation of a sub-cabinet official whom Trump hardly knew and whod been on the job all of two weeks. It was implausible that Trump found Rosensteins arguments so urgently persuasive that he acted immediately so precipitously, in fact, that Comey learned of his own firing from TVs that happened to be playing behind him. These implausibilities were obvious within seconds of Comeys firing and the administrations immediate attempt to pin it all on the Rosenstein memo. That was pure spin. So why in reality did Trump fire Comey? Admittedly, Comey had to go. The cliche is that if youve infuriated both sides, it means you must be doing something right. Sometimes, however, it means you must be doing everything wrong. Over the last year, Comey has been repeatedly wrong. Not, in my view, out of malice or partisanship (although his self-righteousness about his own probity does occasionally grate). He was in an unprecedented situation with unpalatable choices. Never in American presidential history had a major party nominated a candidate under official FBI investigation. (Turns out the Trump campaign was under investigation as well.) Which makes the normal injunction that FBI directors not interfere in elections facile and impossible to follow. Any course of action disclosure or silence, commission or omission carried unavoidable electoral consequences. Comey had to make up the rules as he went along. He did. That was not his downfall. His downfall was making up contradictory, illogical rules, such as the July 5 non-indictment indictment of Clinton. A series of these, and Comey became anathema to both Democrats and Republicans. Clinton blamed her loss on two people. One of them was Comey. And theres the puzzle. There was ample bipartisan sentiment for letting Comey go. And there was ample time from election day on to do so. A simple talk, a gold watch, a friendly farewell, a Comey resignation to allow the new president to pick a new director. No fanfare, no rancor. Advertisement True, this became more difficult after March 20, when Comey revealed that the FBI was investigating the alleged Trump-Russia collusion. Difficult but not impossible. For example, just last week Comey had committed an egregious factual error about the Huma Abedin emails that the FBI had to abjectly walk back in a written memo to the Senate Judiciary Committee. Here was an opportunity for a graceful exit: Comey regrets the mistake and notes that some of the difficult decisions he had previously made necessarily cost him the confidence of various parties. Time for a clean slate. Add the usual boilerplate about not wanting to be a distraction at such a crucial time.Awkward perhaps, but still dignified and amicable. Instead we got a political ax murder, brutal even by Washington standards. (Or even Roman standards?) A blindsided Comey ends up in an O.J. Bronco ride, bolting from Los Angeles to be flown, defrocked, back to Washington. Why? Trump had become increasingly agitated with the Russia-election investigation and Comeys very public part in it. If Trump thought this would kill the inquiry and the story, or perhaps even just derail it somewhat, hes made the blunder of the decade. Whacking Comey has brought more critical attention to the Russia story than anything imaginable. It wont stop the FBI investigation. And the confirmation hearings for a successor will become a nationally televised forum for collusion allegations, which up till now have remained a scandal in search of a crime. So why did he do it? Now we know: The king asked whether no one would rid him of this troublesome priest, and got so impatient he did it himself. Charles Krauthammer is a columnist for The Washington Post. Letters@charleskrauthammer.com

Charles Krauthammer admitted that though he didnt necessarily think it was illegal that President Donald Trump asked former FBI Director James Comey about the purported ongoing Russian investigation, it wasnt exactly proper. Speaking on Thursday nights Special Report With Bret Baier, Baier said, Clearly, Comey told President Trump, at least according to him, numerous times that he wasnt under investigation. Posing the question to his panel, which included Krauthammer, Baier asked, What about this whole thing about asking him at a dinner or on the phone while Director Comey is trying to indicate that he wants to keep the job, whether he the president is being investigated? Krauthammer answered, That came up on Tuesday night when we first read the statement from the president, that very odd statement and by the way, he says Im not under investigation. The question is, I dont think its illegal for that to be asked or answered, but he surely looks pretty improper. I thought thats the standard. You are not supposed to tell someone whether they are or not [being investigated]. Comparing Trumps questioning of Comey to reports of Bill Clintons tarmac discussion with former Attorney General Loretta Lynch regarding the investigation of Hillary Clintons email server, Krauthammer went on. In fact, Krauthammer continued, I think the analogy could be drawn to what happened with Loretta Lynch. We assumed she was improperly approached by Bill Clinton and that he may, or even the fact that he might have asked was, as you showed in the clip earlier, something that Trump himself had called a disgrace. There is a line here, apparently what we hear from Grassley and Feinstein, this did happened, which clears away one question: is it true? The other, should it have happened? I think thats still a question. See the entire segment in the video below.

Charles Krauthammer is a lion in the world of conservative politics. As such, his words on major news stories come with much more gravity than your typical pundit of any philosophical leaning. So tonight was an interesting night to learn how Mr. Krauthammer would react to the bombshell firing of former FBI Director James Comey. One of the many news items that came out today regarding this ever-evolving story-cum-scandal is President Trumps admission that he asked Comey whether or not he was being investigated, something that runs counter to the original reporting of the Comey sacking led by the White House Press Department. Simply put, Krauthammer stated that, while he didnt think it illegal for a sitting President to ask an FBI Director about an on-going investigation, it looks pretty improper, adding that the accepted standard for such behavior for an FBI chief is that he or she is not supposed to tell someone whether they are (under investigation) or not. Like many other conservative commentators who have opined on this story, Krauthammer compared Trumps questioning of Comey to the story of Bill Clinton buttonholing of then AG Loretta Lynch regarding an investigation into Hillary Clintons email server. Watch the clip above courtesy of Fox News. Rough transcript below: And that came up on Tuesday night when we first read the statement from the president, that very odd statement. By the way, he says Im not under investigation. The question is, I dont think its illegal for that to be asked or answered. But it looks pretty improper. I thought thats the standard. You are not supposed to tell someone whether they are or not. I think the analogy could be drawn to what happened with Loretta lynch. We assumed she was improperly approached by Bill Clinton and that he may, or even the fact that he might have asked was, as you showed in the clip earlier, something that Trump himself has called a disgrace. There is a line here, apparently what we hear from Grassley and Feinstein, it happened, which clears away one question. The other, should it have happened? I think thats still a question. Have a tip we should know? tips@mediaite.com

Charles Krauthammer joined Tucker Carlson tonight to react to a CNN interview in which hostAnderson Cooper noticeably rolled his eyes at White House counselor Kellyanne Conway. Conway was appearing on Cooper’s show Tuesday night to discuss President Donald Trump’s decision hours earlier to fire FBI Director James Comey. Cooper rolled his eyes when Conway offered her response to the show playing soundbites in which Trump praised Comey on the campaign trail last year. Conway said this morning on “Fox & Friends” she encounters sexism often when she goes on TV for interviews. Krauthammer said the press is and has always been anti-conservative, but its coverage of the Trump administration is a “special case.” “There is a particular edge to the coverage. And it’s as if the Comey episode … has sort of sent people over the edge, to the point where they think there really are no journalistic limits or journalistic restraints,” Krauthammer said. Tucker asked why the media has such a knee-jerk negative reaction to Trump. Krauthammer said for many on the left – and some on the right, as well – it comes down to a question of fitness for the role of commander-in-chief. “I think there’s a lot about his persona that simply repels people,” Krauthammer said. “And that spills over into how they treat him journalistically, which I think ought not be the case.” Watch more above. Trump: ‘I Know That I’m Not Under Investigation’ Whoopi Goldberg on Trump Firing Comey: ‘Feels Like a Coup’ Trump Highlights Rosie O’Donnell’s Support for Firing Comey McCain on Dems Crying Wolf: ‘They Floated Impeachment on Election Night’

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Under the 'fair use' rule of copyright law, an author may make limited use of another author's work without asking permission. Fair use is based on the belief that the public is entitled to freely use portions of copyrighted materials for purposes of commentary and criticism. The fair use privilege is perhaps the most significant limitation on a copyright owner's exclusive rights.

Fair use as described at 17 U.S.C. Section 107:

"Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phono-records or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.

In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for or nonprofit educational purposes,

(2) the nature of the copyrighted work,

(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole, and

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work."